Karnataka High Court
Mr. Naren Kumar.D @ John Mathew vs State Of Karnataka on 7 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
CRL.A No. 755 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.755 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. NAREN KUMAR D. @ JOHN MATHEW
S/O DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT 9TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
BEMAL, KGF TOWN
KOLAR-563 113
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY
DISTRICT PRISON, CHIKKABALLAPURA)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
MOHAMMED MUBARAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE STATION
CHINTAMANI-563 125
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MR. MURALI
S/O TIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
MUNICIPAL COUNSELLOR
R/AT AGRAHARA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
CRL.A No. 755 of 2024
CHINTAMANI TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: SOUMYA R. HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 STATE
SRI : PRASAD B. , ADV., FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
-------
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC/ST POA ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05.02.2024 PASSED IN SPL.S.C.NO.145/2023 WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA)
AMENDMENT ACT 2015 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.194/2023
OF CHINTHAMANI TOWN P.S., CHINTAMANI AND CONSEQUENTLY
RELEASE HIM ON BAIL.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1 under
Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short,
'SC/ST (POA) Act'] praying to set aside the order dated
05.02.2024 passed in Spl.S.C.No.145/2023 by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura,
for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short,
'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
the SC/ST (POA) Act which is arising out of Crime
No.194/2023 of Chintamani Town Police Station,
Chintamani, whereby the application filed by the
appellant/accused No.1 seeking bail has been rejected.
3. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel
along with Sri. Mohammed Mubarak, learned counsel for
the appellant, Smt. Soumya R., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
Sri Prasad B., learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant and perused the material available on record.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,
on 14.10.2023 at 00:30 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police-
II of Chintamani Town Police Station, Chintamani, lodged a
complaint alleging that on 13.10.2023 at 6:15 p.m., while
he along with CHC-177 were on patrolling duty, they
received a call from an unknown person, wherein he
informed that near Veerabhadreshwara Bakery, Gajanana
Circle, M.G. Road, Chintamani, the victim Murali, Municipal
Councillor of Chintamani City, has been assaulted by some
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
unknown persons with weapons on his head, hands and
caused bleeding injuries and he was shifted to the
Government hospital, Chintamani, for treatment. Hence,
he and CHC-177 came to the hospital and saw the injured
Murali, a member of City Municipality, who was brought by
Thirumalappa. Thus, he enquired Thirumalappa and came
to know that about three to four persons attempted to
commit the murder of Murali. Hence, he lodged a suo
moto complaint, which led to registration of F.I.R. and
investigation.
5. During the course of investigation, the Sub-
Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the victim-
CW-2 on 15.10.2023, wherein, the victim disclosed the
names of the accused persons. Hence, the Investigating
Officer arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 and in turn, they were
remanded to judicial custody. The appellant/accused No.1
filed application for seeking bail before the trial Court and
the same was rejected on 05.02.2024. Hence, the
appellant is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused No.1 has contended that as per the
case of the prosecution, the victim was assaulted by
accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.4 abetted the
commission of offence. Now, the investigation is
completed and the Investigating Officer has filed the
charge-sheet to the Court. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is
submitted that the injured-victim has already been
discharged from the hospital. The appellant hails from
respectable family and he has permanent abodes in the
locality. He is ready to abide by the conditions to be
imposed by this Court. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are already on
bail. Hence, on the ground of parity, accused No.1 is also
entitled for bail, thus, prayed to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent-State contended that the appellant is involved
in heinous offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
he has participated in the crime and assaulted the victim
with chopper and knife on the vital organs i.e., on head,
hands, shoulder and knee of the victim. He further
submitted that as per the CDR report, the actual
participation of accused Nos.1 to 3 is clearly visible which
is on the instigation of accused No.4. If the
appellant/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail, there is
likelihood of tampering the prosecution case and
hampering the trial. Hence, he prayed to reject the bail
application filed by the appellant/accused No.1.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
complainant submitted that there is sufficient material to
show the involvement of the appellant in the case. There
are various criminal cases pending against the appellant
and accused No.1 has attacked on CW-2 Murali. Hence,
there is sufficient material against the appellant to attract
section 307 IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
9. Considering the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for the parties, the following point arises for
consideration of this Court:-
"Whether the appellant/accused No.1 is
entitled for regular bail under section 439
Cr.P.C.?
10. From the perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that on account of previous enmity
between accused No.4 and the victim, on 13.10.2023 at
about 6.15 p.m., near Veerabhadreshwara Bakery,
accused Nos.1 to 3 alleged to have assaulted CW-2 victim
on his head, hands, knee and shoulder with knife and
chopper and thereby attempted to commit his murder.
Now, CW-2 injured has been discharged from the hospital.
From the perusal of the order passed by this Court in
Crl.A.No.347/2024 c/w Crl.A.No.272/2024, this Court
granted bail in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3. The
allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3 are similar
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
against accused No.1. Therefore, on the ground of parity,
accused No.1 is also entitled for bail.
11. At this stage, the Court cannot conduct mini trial
and only prima-facie case has to be seen. Since the
investigation is completed and Investigating Officer has
filed the charge sheet and the victim is discharged from
the hospital, hence, accused No.1 is entitled for bail,
considering the nature of offences and circumstances in
which the offences is committed, likelihood of fleeing away
from justice, of repeating same offences by the appellant,
of tampering with the witnesses, character, antecedents of
the appellant is concerned. Further, the law is well settled
that while disposing off a bail petition, the Court need not
hold mini trial. Keeping all these aspects, this Court has
gone through the entire material placed on record and it
appears that, prima-facie, there are no reasonable and
sufficient grounds to believe, at this stage, that the
appellant is guilty of the offences alleged. Hence, the
Court proceeds to pass the following:-
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
ORDER
Criminal appeal is allowed.
The appellant/accused No1 is ordered to be released
on bail in Spl.S.C.No.145/2023(Crime No.194/2023)
registered for the offence punishable under Section 307
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkaballapura, subject to the following
conditions:
i. The appellant/accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakh only) with two sureties for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court;
ii. The appellant/accused No.1 shall not tamper
with the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly;
iii. The appellant shall not commit similar
offences;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17071
iv. The appellant shall appear before the trial
Court on all dates of hearing without fail,
and
v. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the trial Court without its prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MN
